What was World
War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years
after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians
and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of
history but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing
what WWI really was.

Subject
: Social Engineering: “collateral damage” and
other fallacies of mistaking the map for the terrain.

April
18, 2020

Grenoble,
France

Dear
Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

Experiencing
the serendipity at a library bookshelf is one of the deeper pleasures that historical
research provided before the digital age. The current coronavirus “lockdown”
has rekindled this pleasure of surprise, as I look for a book and discover
another I had read years before, with memories of a different social context.

It
has been more than a decade since I read books written by the Australian
physicist Fritjof Capara,
who spent a life time doing research in the field of theoretical high-energy
physics and later began exploring the relationship between “modern physics” and
Eastern mysticism. He recounts this intellectual journey in a very accessible
book, The
Tao of Physics (1975).

The
spring and summer of 2011 was the period I began reading Capara’s works. (This is
reflected in Ceimsa Bulletin N° 493 and 495.) Discovering a
copy of his 1975 paperback on my dusty bookshelf was a surprise, like an
unexpected meeting with an old friend. I immediately picked up the book and
began reading it, along with the notes I’d written in the margins. It was a
rediscovery, in the deepest sense of the word.

I
found then, and again today, a most interesting discussion in this book’s
fourth chapter, entitled “The New Physics”, which Capara introduces with a
lucid comparison of the new theoretical science with ancient practices of
mysticism.

According
to the Eastern mystics, the directly mystical experience of reality is a
momentous event which shakes the very foundations of one’s world view. D.T.
Suzuki has called it ‘the most startling event that could ever happen in the
realm of human consciousness … upsetting every form of standardized experience’,
and he has illustrated the shocking character of this experience with the words
of a Zen master who described it as ‘the bottom of a pail breaking through’.

Physicists, at the beginning of this century,
felt much the same way when the foundations of their world view were shaken by
the new experience of the atomic reality, and they described this experience in
terms which were often very similar to those used by Suzuki’s Zen master. Thus
Heisenberg wrote:

‘The
violent reaction on the recent development of modern physics can only be
understood when one realizes that here

the
foundations of physics have started moving; and that this motion has caused the
feeling that the ground would be

cut from science.’

Einstein
experienced the same shock when he first came in contact with the new reality
of atomic physics. He wrote in his autobiography:

It
was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm
foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which

one
could have built.’

The discoveries of modern physics
necessitated profound changes of concepts like space, time, matter, object,
cause and effect, etc., and since these concepts are so basic to our way of
experiencing the world it is not surprising that the physicists who were forced
to change them felt something of a shock. Out of these changes emerged a new
and radically different world view, still in the process of formation by
current scientific research.

It seems, then, that Eastern mystics and
Western physicists went through similar revolutionary experiences which led
them to completely new ways of seeing the world. In the following two passages
the European physicist Niels Bohr and the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo both express the depth and the radical character of this
experience.

‘The
great extension of our experience in recent years has brought to light the insufficiency
of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the
foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.’

-Niels Bohr, 1934

‘All
things in fact begin to change their nature and appearance; one’s whole
experience of the world is radically different … There is a new vast and deep
way of experiencing, seeing, knowing, contacting things.’

-Sri
Aurobindo, 1958

This
chapter will serve to sketch a preliminary picture to this new conception of
the world against the contrasting background of classical physics; showing how
the classical mechanistic world view had to be abandoned at the beginning of
this century when quantum theory and relativity theory – the two basic theories
of modern physics - forced us to adopt a much more subtle, holistic and
‘organic’ view of nature.(pp.54-56)

With
this introduction, Capara then proceeds to briefly trace the intellectual
history of scientific thought and the ‘revolution’ that was experienced at the
turn of the 20th century.

The
World view which was changed by the discoveries of modern physics had been based
on Newton’s mechanical model of the universe. This model constituted the solid
framework of classical physics. It was indeed a most formidable foundation
supporting, like a mighty rock, all of science and providing a firm basis for
natural philosophy for almost three centuries.

The stage of the Newtonian universe, on
which all physical phenomena took place, was the three-dimensional space of
classical Euclidean geometry. It was an absolute space, always at rest and
unchangeable. In Newton’s own words, ‘Absolute space, in its own nature,
without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.’ All
changes in the physical world were described in terms of a separate dimension,
called time, which again was absolute, having no connection with the material
world and flowing smoothly from the past through the present to the future.
‘Absolute, true, and mathematical time,’ said Newton, ‘of itself and by its own
nature, flows uniformly, without regard to anything external.’

The elements of the Newtonian world which
moved in this absolute space and absolute time were material particles. In the
mathematical equations they were treated as ‘mass points’ and Newton saw them
as small, solid, and indestructible objects out of which all matter was made.
This model was quite similar to that of the Greek atomists. Both were based on
the distinction between the full and the void, between matter and space, and in
both models the particles remained always identical in their mass and shape.
Matter was therefore always conserved and essentially passive. The important
difference between the Democritean and Newtonian atomism is that the latter
includes a precise description of the force acting between the material
particles. This force is very simple, depending only on the masses and the
mutual distances of the particles. It is the force of gravity, and it was seen
by Newton as rigidly connected with the bodies it acted upon, and as acting
instantaneously over a distance. Although this was strange hypothesis, it was
not investigated further. The particles and the forces between them were seen
as created by God and thus were not subject to further analysis. In his Opticks,
Newton gives us a clear picture of how he imagined God’s creation of the
material world:

‘It
seems probable to me that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy,
hard, impenetrable, movable particles,

of
such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion
to space, as most conduced to the end

for
which he formed them; and that these primitive particles being solids, are
incomparably harder than any porous bodies

compounded
of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power
being able to divide

what
God himself made one in the first creation.’

All physical events are reduced, in
Newtonian mechanics to the motion of material points in space, caused by their
mutual attraction, i.e. by the force of gravity. In order to put the effect of
this force on a mass point into a precise mathematical form, Newton had to
invent completely new concepts and mathematical techniques, those of
differential calculus. This was a tremendous intellectual achievement and has
been praised by Einstein as ‘perhaps the greatest advance in thought that a
singular individual was ever privileged to make.’

Newton’s equations of motion are the basis
of classical mechanics. They were considered to be fixed laws according to
which material points move, and were thus thought to account for all changes
observed in the physical world. In the Newtonian view, God had created, in the
beginning, the material particles, the forces between them, and the fundamental
laws of motion. In this way, the whole universe was set in motion and it has
continued to run ever since, like a machine, governed by immutable laws.

The mechanistic view of nature is thus
closely related to a rigorous determinism. The giant cosmic machine was seen as
being completely causal and determinate. All that happened had a definite cause
and gave rise to a definite effect, and the future of any part of the system could
– in principle – be predicted with absolute certainty if its state at any time
was known in all details. This belief found its clearest expression in the
famous words of the French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace:

‘An
intellect which at a given instant knew all the forces acting in nature, and
the position of all things of which the world

consists –
supposing the said intellect were vast enough to subject these data to analysis
– would embrace in the same formula

the motions
of the greatest bodies in the universe and those of the slightest atoms;
nothing would be uncertain for it, and the future,

like
the past, would be present to its eyes.’

The philosophical basis of this
rigorous determinism was the fundamental division between the ‘I’ and the
‘world’ introduced by Descartes. As a consequence of this division, it was believed
that the world could be described objectively, i.e. without ever mentioning the
human observer, and such an objective description of nature became the ideal of
all science.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
witnessed a tremendous success of Newtonian mechanics. Newton himself applied
his theory to the movement of the planets and was able to explain the basic
features of the solar system. His planetary model was greatly simplified,
however, neglecting, for example, the gravitational influences of the planets
on each other, and thus he found that there were certain irregularities which
he could not explain. He resolved this problem by assuming that God was also
present in the universe to correct these irregularities.

Laplace, the great mathematician, set
himself the ambitious task of refining and perfecting Newton’s calculations in
a book which should ‘offer a complete solution of the great mechanical problem presented
by the solar system, and bring theory to coincide so closely with observation
that empirical evaluations would no longer find a place in astronomical
tables’. The result was a large work of five volumes, called MécaniqueCéleste
in which Laplace succeeded in explaining the motions of the planets, moons, and
comets down to the smallest details, as well as the flow of the tides and other
phenomena related to gravity. He showed that the Newtonian laws of motion
assured the stability of the solar system and treated the universe as a
perfectly self-regulating machine. When Laplace presented the first edition of
his work to Napoleon – so the story goes – Napoleon remarked, ‘Monsieur
Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the
universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ To this Laplace replied
bluntly, ‘I had no need for that hypothesis.’

Encouraged by the brilliant success of
Newtonian mechanics in astronomy, physicists extended it to the continuous
motion of fluids and to the vibrations of elastic bodies, and again it worked.
Finally, even the theory of heat could be reduced to mechanics when it was
realized that heat was the energy crated by a complicated ‘jiggling’ motion of
the molecules. When the temperature of, say, water is increased the motion of
the water molecules increases until they overcome the forces holding them
together and fly apart. In this way, water turns into steam. On the other hand,
when the thermal motion is slowed down by cooling the water, the molecules
finally lock into a new, more rigid pattern which is ice. In a similar way,
many other thermal phenomena can be understood quite well from a purely
mechanistic point of view.

The enormous success of the mechanistic
model made physicists of the early nineteenth century believe that the universe
was indeed a huge mechanical system running according to the Newtonian laws of
motion. These laws were seen as the basic laws of nature and Newton’s mechanics
was considered to be the ultimate theory of natural phenomena. And yet, it was
less than a hundred years later that a new physical reality was discovered
which made the limitations of the Newtonian model apparent and showed that none
of its features had absolute validity.

This realization did not come abruptly,
but was initiated by developments that had already started in the nineteenth
century and prepared the way for the scientific revolutions of our time. The
first of these developments was the discovery and investigation of electric and
magnetic phenomena which could not be described appropriately by the
mechanistic model and involved a new type of force. The important step was made
by Michael Faraday and Clerk F– the first, one of the greatest experimenters in
the history of science; the second , a brilliant
theorist. When Faraday produced an eclectic current in a coil of copper by
moving a magnet near it, and thus converted the mechanical work of moving the
magnet into eclectic energy, he brought science and technology to a turning
point. His fundamental experiment gave birth, on the one hand, to the vast
technology of electrical engineering; on the other hand, it formed the basis of
his and Maxwell’s theoretical speculations which, eventually, resulted in a
complete theory of electromagnetism. Faraday and Maxwell did not only study the
effects of the electronic and magnetic forces; but made the forces themselves
the primary object of their investigation. They replaced the concept of a force
by that of a force field, and in doing so they were the first to go beyond Newtonian
physics.

Instead of interpreting the interaction
between a positive and a negative charge simply by saying that the two charges
attract each other like two masses in Newtonian mechanics, Faraday and Maxwell
found it more appropriate to say that each charge creates a ‘disturbance’, or a
‘condition’, in the space around it so that the other charge, when it is
present, feels a force. This condition in space which has the potential of
producing a force is called a field. It is created by a single charge and it
exists whether or not another charge is brought in to feel its effect.

This was a most profound change in man’s
conception of physical reality. In the Newtonian view, the forces were rigidly
connected with the bodies they act upon. Now the force concept was replaced by
the much subtler concept of a field which had its own reality and could be
studied without any reference to material bodies. The culmination of this
theory, called electrodynamics, was the realization that light is nothing but a
rapidly alternating electromagnetic field travelling through space in the form
of waves. Today we know that radio waves, light waves or X-rays, are all
electromagnetic waves, oscillating electric and magnetic fields differing only
in the frequency of their oscillation, and that visible light is only a tiny
fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In spite of these far-reaching changes,
Newtonian mechanics at first held its position as the basis of all physics.
Maxwell himself tried to explain his results in mechanical terms, interpreting
the fields as states of mechanical stress in a very
light space-filling medium, called ether, and the electromagnetic waves as
elastic waves of this ether. This was only natural as waves are usually
experienced as vibrations of something; water waves as vibrations of water,
sound waves as vibrations of air. Maxwell, however, used several mechanical interpretations
of his theory at the same time and apparently took none of them really
seriously. He must have realized intuitively, even if he did not say so
explicitly, that the fundamental entities in his theory were the ‘fields’ and
not the mechanical models. It was Einstein who clearly recognized this fact
fifty years later when he declared that no ether “existed and that the
electromagnetic fields were physical entities in their own right which could
travel through empty space and could not be explained mechanically.

At the beginning of the twentieth century,
then, physicists had two successful theories which applied to different
phenomena: Newton’s mechanics and Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Thus the Newtonian
model had ceased to be the basis of all physics.(pp.56-62)

Fritzjor
Capara goes on to describe “modern physics” and the turmoil these new
discoveries caused in our thinking of the world.

The
first three decades of our [20th] century changed the whole
situation in physics radically. Two separate developments – that of relativity
theory and of atomic physics – shattered all the principal concepts of the
Newtonian world view: the notion of absolute space and time, the elementary
solid particles, the strictly causal nature of physical phenomena, and the ideal
of an objective description of nature. None of these concepts could be extended
to the new domains into which physics was now penetrating.

At the beginning of modern physics stands
the extraordinary intellectual feat of one man: Albert Einstein. In two
articles, both published in 1905, Einstein initiated two revolutionary trends
of thought. One was his special theory of relativity; the other was a new way
of looking at electromagnetic radiation which was to become characteristic of
quantum theory, the theory of atomic phenomena. The complete quantum theory was
worked out twenty years later by a whole team of physicists. Relativity theory,
however, was constructed in its complete form almost entirely by Einstein
himself. Einstein’s scientific papers stand at the beginning of the twentieth
century as imposing intellectual monuments – the pyramids of modern civilization.

Einstein strongly believed in nature’s
inherent harmony and his deepest concern throughout his scientific life was to
find a unified foundation of physics. He began to move towards this goal by
constructing a common framework for electrodynamics and mechanics, the two
separate theories of classical physics. This framework is known as the special theory
of relativity. It unified and completed the structure of classical physics, but
at the same time it involved drastic changes in the traditional concepts of
space and time and undermined one of the foundations of the Newtonian world
view.

According to relativity theory, space is
not three-dimensional and time is not a separate entity. Both are intimately connected
and form a four-dimensional continuum, ‘space-time’. In relativity theory,
therefore, we can never talk about space without talking about time and vice
versa. Furthermore, there is no universal flow of time as in the Newtonian
model. Different observers will order events differently in time if they move
with different velocities relative to the observed events. In such a case, two
events which are seen as occurring simultaneously by one observer may occur in
different temporal sequences for another observer. All measurements involving
space and time thus lose their absolute significance. In relativity theory, the
Newtonian concept of an absolute space as the stage of physical phenomena is
abandoned and so is the concept of absolute time. Both space and time become
merely elements of the language a particular observer uses for his description
of the phenomena.

The concepts of space and time are so
basic for the description of natural phenomena that their modification entails
a modification of the whole framework that we use to describe nature. The most
important consequence of this modification is the realization that mass is nothing
but a form of energy. Even an object at rest has energy stored in its mass, and
the relation between the two is given by the famous equation E=mc2,
c being the speed of light.

This constant c, the speed of light, is of
fundamental importance for the theory of relativity. Whenever we describe
physical phenomena involving velocities which approach the speed of light, our description
has to take relativity theory into account. This applies in particular to
electromagnetic phenomena, of which light is just one example and which led
Einstein to the formulation of his theory.

In 1915, Einstein proposed his general
theory of relativity in which the framework of the special theory is extended
to include gravity, i.e. the mutual attraction of all massive bodies. Whereas
the ‘special theory’ has been confirmed by innumerable experiments, the ‘general
theory’ has not yet been confirmed conclusively; however, it is so far the most
accepted, consistent and elegant theory of gravity and is widely used in astrophysics
and cosmology for the description of the universe at large.

The force of gravity, according to
Einstein’s theory, has the effect of ‘curving’ space and time. This means that
ordinary Euclidian geometry is no longer valid in such a curved space, just as
the two-dimensional geometry of a plane cannot be applied on the surface of a
sphere. (pp.62-65)

Towards
the end of this chapter on “modern physics,” Capara cautions
against the use of these theories indiscriminately. Newtonian theory and Maxwell’s electrodynamics are not
entirely obsolete, and relativity theory and quantum theory cannot explain
everything.

The mechanistic world view of classical
physics was based on the notion of solid bodies moving in empty space. This
notion is still valid in the region that has been called the ‘zone of middle
dimensions’, that is, in the realm of our daily experience where classical physics
continues to be a useful theory. Both concepts – that of empty space and that
of solid material bodies – are deeply ingrained in our habits of thought, so it
is extremely difficult for us to imagine a physical reality where they do not
apply. And yet, this is precisely what modern physics forces us to do when we
go beyond the middle dimensions. ‘Empty space’ has lost its meaning in
astrophysics and cosmology, the sciences of the universe at large, and the
concept of solid objects was shattered by atomic physics, the science of the
infinitely small.(p.67)

Nevertheless,
this chapter from the intellectual history of scientific thought does provide
insights into changes in perspective and how cultural hegemony can govern our views
of the world. Learning to question and to think critically should free us from
the dogma of dominant narrative, the ruling paradigm; and enable us to
participate collectively in the construction of the “categorical imperatives”
which we must face.

The
22 + items below provide information that might be useful in evaluating
the conditions in which we are now living. The historic turmoil caused by the
colossal breakdowns of our economic and ecological systems, not to mention the
insane warmongering orchestrated by a self-appointed power elite, make it incumbent
upon all of us to educate ourselves and those around us. Alternative views are
expressed frequently in the social media, and we should be equipped to study
these views and decide for ourselves if they are possible, plausible or true.
Without this critical capacity, we are abandoned to the whims of demagogues and
charlatans, which history shows us can only end in disaster.

Sincerely,

Francis
Feeley

---

Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur de Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
(CEIMSA-in-Exile)The University of California-San Diego

The numbers are in on the great Covid-19 pandemic
. . . but unfortunately those numbers are unreliable. From mendacious models
and puffed-up projections to dodgy death data and tainted tests, today on The
Corbett Report James highlights what the accredited scientists and
award-winning researchers are saying about the pandemic pandemonium of 2020.I

with Dr. Michael Worobey, Professor, Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Arizona

(1:08:08)

The Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918
was the most intense outbreak of disease in human history. It killed upwards of
50 million people (most in a six-week period) casting a long shadow of fear and
mystery: nearly a century later, scientists have been unable to explain why,
unlike all other influenza outbreaks, it killed young adults in huge numbers. I
will describe how analyses of large numbers of influenza virus genomes are
revealing the pathway traveled by the genes of this virus before it exploded in
1918. What emerges is a surprising tale with many players and plot lines, in
which echoes of prior pandemics, imprinted in the immune responses of those
alive in 1918, set the stage for the catastrophe. I will also discuss how
resolving the mysteries of 1918 could help to prevent future pandemics and to
control seasonal influenza, which quietly kills millions more every decade.

Historical documentary about 1918 Swine Flu or
Spanish Flu and the role of World War I in spreading the disease among troops
making it into a worldwide plague of devastating proportions. The video covers
where it began, how and where it spread, the symptoms, how it affected America
and whether it could happen again.

On
the scapegoating of ethnic minorities during epidemics in US history, going
back to cholera in 1832, blamed on Irish Catholics. The author teaches history
at American University, where he is also an affiliate faculty member of the Public
Health Program.

"Zooming
or not, we have an extraordinary opportunity to engage our young people with
the most important issues in their life-time." The author teaches history
at Hofstra University. Her e-mailing from last week, "Teaching Resources Pertaining to
the Current Crisis," is on the H-PAD website.

"The
president is the latest in a long line of conservative politicians to see
minority voters as a threat." The author teaches history at Yale
University and won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for history with his biography of
Frederick Douglass.

On
how the 1918 flu epidemic influenced writers (T. S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, W.
B. Yeats, H. P. Lovecraft among them) in the interwar period. The author
teaches literature at the University of Richmond and has written Viral Modernism:
The Influenza Pandemic and Interwar Literature (Columbia U. Press, 2019).

From: Mark Crispin MillerSent: Friday, April 17, 2020 Subject: [MCM] Two takes on the current war against humanity

Why
beat around the bush? What we don't know—or what we refuse to face—can kill
us,

andis killing
us.

MCM

1.
From John Kirby:

SHORT ANALYSIS OF A FOUR-PRONGED PARADIGM ATTACK

1-The biological/psychological,
beginning with whatever the virus is, which kills very selectively with the
help of protocol ventilator abuse and preexisting chronic disease in an
unhealthy population (and likely regardless of “distancing”). Since
actual deaths are quite low and likely not beyond the statistical norm, this
aspect of the attack has been largely psychological. The actual illness,
however caused, could be a precursor or set-up for what is likely the real
population reduction engine, the vaccine.

2-The political,
massive “wartime unity” effect (“alone together”); the obvious effects of
lockdown and “distancing” on dissent, which are further enabled by

3-The financial,
the massive wealth transfer, the penury of the middle class and destruction of
small business and small farms, the periodic need to “pop and bail” the
bubble-finance economy, trillions in pyramid schemes propped up once again,
debt peonage for the many. Universal Basic Income a subsidy to corporate wages
and dependent on good behavior, the “dull compulsion of the economic” for
the masses, enforced by

4-The biomedical/biometric,
“immunity cards”, subcutaneous chips, “digital certificates”, “quantum tattoos”
and possible nanotech vaccines that are either poison, reactive to a further
viral/chemical attack or filled with “bots” that can be accessed by the
WiFi/cellular network to achieve injury, death or compliance through one
technique or another.

I think they had a number of pressing reasons to “unzip” this
paradigm attack, one of the keys being the rise of automation and AI creating
profit pressure to reduce the superfluous workforce, leading to the rise a
technocratic-“socialist” state of entrained consumers and/or massive population
reduction.

Also, as per history, people were getting restive again (Yellow
Vests, et. al.) and the expanded consciousness that the Internet can provide
was creating broad distrust of authorities.

They have revealed themselves as a global power structure, in my
view, and as one theorist says, have “closed the door behind them”. This
is it. However, though they are way ahead of us, we are still stronger if
we recognize it. As Marx (I think) said, we could rise up and shake them
off like a dog shakes off its fleas, if we dared... and some people are daring.
See Germany, Michigan, Ohio.

As any and all political-economic models are overshadowed by
ultra-high tech, it might be that the only solution is some kind of
decentralized agrarian tech-selective model. Otherwise it’s Faust, Faust, Faust...

2.
From Dick Atlee:

There
is so much information coming across my path these days that it is
hard to pick and choose what might be of interest to people on this list —
so many possible recommendations, and I just haven't been able to get
around to sharing it. So this note is just a heads-up, without the
voluminous supporting documentation that some might rightfully demand. I
hope I'll be able to send some of that out later.

I'm sending this now because there is so much talk starting about how
things will manage to return to something like they were "before."
Sometimes it feels like that, at least for those of us fairly well off in
whatever makes it possible to get through this with just inconveniences.
(And for people like me, who live on a state pension, the stock market
crash may force states to renege on pension obligations.) But, in fact,
things will not be the same, because of larger forces at work that don't
seem to rise above the shallow virus-as-health-threat-and-inconveniencer
mainstream news coverage.

There are two main interrelated themes:

(1) the virus as cover for massive changes in the financial system that, of
course, benefit the incredibly wealthy and powerful and aim in the
direction of beggaring the rest of us, and

(2) the large-scale effects that the lockdown-induced removal of workers
from their workplaces is going to have on the future of those workers and
workplaces.

(1) is being forwarded in part by the Fed's creation
or augmentation of a
variety of financial manipulation tools. Two good sources for information
on this are James Corbett's interview with John Titus (who has been putting
out a video series called "Mafiacracy Now"), and James's recent
"The
Greatest Depression" episode (with extensive documentation show notes):

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1533-john-titus-exposes-the-feds-coronavirus-lies/https://www.corbettreport.com/greatestdepression/Regarding
(2), many businesses still operating (particularly in retail —
e.g., Walmart, Amazon, fast food) are finding the solution to their
manpower problems is robotic technology. It solves social distancing
problems and reduces the costs and vicissitudes associated with human
employees. Sales of robotics products are soaring. Before the virus struck,
it had been predicted that as many as half of all jobs existing now would
be gone by 2050, but the move to automation underlying this has been
greatly accelerated by the lockdown. When people go back to their jobs,
many will find the jobs no longer there.

The "solution" to this — now already in effect in Spain and being
considered all over Europe — is Universal Basic Income (UBI). The idea has
been around for a long time (and advocated by many of us
"progressives",
but it has become the darling of the billionaire class because the social
unrest that automation will unleash might become a problem for them. The
haggling over the U.S. stimulus payment that settled on a one-time (or
maybe even periodic) $1200 payment shows how out-of-touch the ruling class
is with the financial realities of the vast majority of working people. But
it is that ruling class will be deciding what our UBI is.

THE BIG ONE: But the truly threatening reality inherent in the UBI is that
it is the government that will be dishing it out. The same government that
is possessed of an armamentarium of increasingly sophisticated tracking
technology, already in use in many places in the U.S., to see who is
getting too close to whom, or going to places or doing things they "hadn't
ought to."

Some people will say, "I have nothing to hide." But China is the test
bed
our government is eagerly watching, and in China what you get to do, where
you can go (even out of your house: "lockdown"), and what your income
opportunities are, are now tied to your "social credit score," which
is
tied to how well you follow the government's mandates.

The social credit score is essentially a push of a button away in the U.S.
and actively being talked about by policy think tanks. If you eventually
don't have an independent job, and are reliant on whatever pittance-level
UBI the powers that be will have decided to dole out to you, you have
become what used to be called, in blunt terms, a slave. What will you do if
that UBI is cut off for bad behavior?

Think about Bill Gates, as described in my previous note. He is one of
those waiting in the wings to help define good behavior. And he wants it to
be worldwide.

Again, James Corbett does a masterful job of laying bare the reach of this
problem in his recent "Corona World Order" episode:

Part of his concern is the way in which all this provides fodder for those
wishing to centralize power in an increasingly globalized from. So you can
skip the first 6:20 which he spends taking to task those who think the
chaos of the virus has disadvantaged the globalist agenda. The meat of his
message starts at about that time, and you NEED to be aware of it as you
watch things unfold.

The final straw to this dystopic vision is provided by what appears to have
been a fundamental misconception of how the pandemic has been playing out
that has driven the policy response. If true, it will have caused us to
lose the opportunity for a reasonable level of real "herd immunity"
(as
opposed to the fictitious vaccine version), and condemned us to one or more
repeated surges of disease and more lockdowns that will further enable the
processes described above.

Two weeks ago, Trump deployed dozens of Navy ships and
aircraft, as well as thousands of troops, just off Venezuelan waters in the
middle of a pandemic. Nobody in Congress has said a word about this
dangerous maneuver! Tell Congress that the U.S. must fight COVID-19, not
Venezuela.

Nobody in Congress has said a word about Trump’s
deployment of ships and troops just off Venezuelan waters
during a pandemic that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of our fellow
citizens. Trump has been threatening war with Venezuela for nearly three
years, and he’s been hinting at a naval blockade of the country (which itself
is an act of war) since August 2019. This deployment could be the first step
in such a blockade. It also puts thousands of U.S. sailors and marines at
risk for contagion of COVID-19.

The good news is that there are already two bills in Congress
prohibiting the Trump administration from using military force in Venezuela
without Congressional authorization. The bad news is that those two bills
have stalled and nobody in Congress has stepped up to denounce this dangerous
escalation in the Trump administration’s goal of regime change in Venezuela.

The pretext of the U.S. Navy deployment is an alleged plot by
the Venezuelan government “to flood the streets” of the U.S. with cocaine,
which is absurd since 92% of the
cocaine in the U.S. comes from Colombia. The actual reason is
regime change, and in recent days the White House stepped up its efforts to
destroy the Venezuelan economy by banning U.S. companies from selling
gasoline or gasoline additives (which are necessary to produce gasoline) to
the country. A senior Venezuelan official expressed concern that the naval
deployment could be used to attack the Venezuelan economy if oil tankers and
other trade ships are boarded and have their cargo seized by the U.S. Navy.
This is a real possibility given that a Pentagon official recently claimed,
without any evidence, that Venezuelan oil tankers ship drugs to Cuba.

It might seem unlikely for Congress to take action on foreign
policy during these difficult times, as they are understandably focused
almost exclusively on COVID-19. That is why in our emails to Congress, we
will frame the debate in terms of the coronavirus. After all, the White House
itself has already done this, claiming in a press conference that the
deployment will somehow help fight the virus. In fact, the deployment will
make the virus even worse; as we saw on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, U.S.
service members are particularly at risk for contagion, given that they live
in close quarters—especially on ships. The Department of Defense has already
said that over 4,700 of its members (including military and civilians) have
contracted COVID-19.

Despite the call for a
global ceasefire, Trump is sending more troops and military
assets towards Venezuela, a country he has had on his radar for years. The
Venezuelan people have asked us to help stop Trump’s war. Venezuela is doing
a great job so
far in containing COVID-19, but the sanctions continue to kill
innocent civilians and the navy deployment will make things worse. Let’s
oppose U.S. intervention and take action to stop this war.

Instead of
demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open and
responsible debate on the science, too many online outlets are silencing
critics and shutting down discussion on this key public health and civil rights
issue.

Late last year, Slate published an
investigative report detailing how pharmaceutical giant, Merck, used
“flawed” and “unreliable” pre-licensing safety studies to push through approval
of its multi-billion-dollar bonanza, the HPV vaccine. For veteran safe vaccine
advocates, like myself, the most shocking aspect of
the expose was that Slate
published it at all. Slate and other liberal online publications including Salon, Huffington Post and The Daily Beast
customarily block articles that critique vaccine safety in order, they argue,
to encourage vaccination and protect public health. Motivated by this noble
purpose, the liberal media—the supposed antidote to corporate and government
power—has helped insulate from scrutiny the burgeoning vaccine industry and its
two regulators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Both agencies have pervasive and
potentially corrupting financial entanglements with the vaccine manufacturers,
according to extensive
congressional
investigations.

Ironically, liberals routinely lambaste Pharma, and
its FDA enablers for putting profits over people. Recent examples include Vioxx
(100,000
injured—Merck paid more than $5 billion
in fines and settlements), Abilify (Bristol Meyers Squibb paid $515 million
for marketing the drug to nursing homes, knowing it can be fatal to seniors),
Celebrex and Bextra (Pfizer paid $894 million for
bribing public officials and false advertising about safety and effectiveness)
and, of course, the opioid crisis, which in
2016 killed more Americans than the 20-year Vietnam War. What then,
makes liberals think that these same companies are immune from similar
temptations when it comes to vaccines? There is plenty of evidence that they
are not. Merck, the world’s largest vaccine maker, is currently fighting multiple
lawsuits, brought by its own scientists, claiming that the company forced
them to falsify efficacy data for its MMR vaccine.

The Slate
article nowhere discloses that FDA licenses virtually all vaccines using the
same mawing safety science deficiencies that brought us Gardasil. FDA claims
that “vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing to determine their safety.” But
that’s not true. FDA’s choice to classify vaccine makers as “biologics” rather
than “drugs” opened a regulatory loophole that allows vaccines to evade any
meaningful safety testing. Instead of the multi-year double-blind inert placebo
studies—the gold standard of safety science—that the FDA requires prior to
licensing other medications, most vaccines now on the CDC’s recommended
childhood vaccine schedule were safety tested for only a few days or weeks. For
example, the
manufacturer’s package insert discloses that Merck’s Hep B vaccine (almost
every American infant receives a Hep B shot on the day of birth) underwent, not
five years, but a mere five days of safety testing. If the babies in these
studies had a seizure—or died—on day six, Merck was under no obligation to
disclose those facts.

+

Here’s why Bill
Gates wants indemnity… Are you willing to take the risk?

“Scientists
are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t
mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis,
Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction

What
do we mean when we say somebody has ‘tested positive’ for the Corona Virus? The
answer would astound you. But getting this “answer” is like getting to a very
rare mushroom that only grows above 200 feet on a Sequoia tree in the forbidden
forest.

I
say that for dramatic effect, but also because I wound up, against all odds,
finding it.

Every
day I wake up and work at shedding one more layer of ignorance —by listening
carefully. I got lucky with scientists many years ago; Epic, incredible
scientists, happening to cross my path when nobody else wanted to talk to them.
Now their names are emerging, their warnings and corrections crystallizing.
True “science” (the nature of the natural world) is never bad news. Globalist
science is nothing but bad news.

The
reason Bill Gates wants you to believe a Corona Virus will exterminate over 450
million people is that he hates nature, God, and you. (A
subjective interpretation.)

Why
is that? You’d have to ask his psychiatrist.

But
let’s talk about the latest terror bomb detonated by Global Atheist PC Creeps
upon your perfectly good, free life as a US citizen in 2020, governed by a
President who does not think backwards.

How
many of us are “infected” with this novel Corona virus, and how scared should
we be?

First,
a spiritual law: Anything that tries to frighten you comes from “opposition,”
in spiritual battle. It’s not the Holy Spirit, period. Ignore its threats and
keep your wits about you. You don’t have to shout, “Stay safe!’ to your
neighbors. We are safe. We have an immune system that is a miracle
like The Sistine Chapel. It withstands toxic, microbial inundation on a grand
scale at all times, while operating a super-highway of adaptive life-sustaining
genetic information, on cellular bridges, emitting telegrams of vital
evolutionary code, slandered as “viruses” or “retroviruses.”

People
die—yes. But people don’t die the way Bill Gates would have you believe, at the
mercy of malicious, predatory pathogens, “lurking” on every surface, and
especially other humans. That’s not “science.” That’s social engineering. Terrorism.

Let’s proceed.

What
do we mean when we say a person “tests positive” for Covid-19?

We
don’t actually mean they have been found to “have” it.

We’ve
been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually
mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with,
and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available
Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)

His
name was Kary B. Mullis, and he was one of the warmest, funniest, most
eclectic-minded people I ever met, in addition to being a staunch critic of HIV
“science,” and an unlikely Nobel Laureate, i.e. a “genius.”

One
time, in 1994, when I called to talk to him about how PCR was being weaponized
to “prove,” almost a decade after it was asserted, that HIV caused AIDS, he
actually came to tears.

The
people who have taken all your freedoms away in recent weeks, they’re
social engineers, politicians, globalist thought
leaders, bankers, WHO fanatics, and the like. Their army is composed of
“mainstream media,” which is now literally a round-the-clock perfect propaganda
machine for the Gates-led Pandemic Reich.

Kary
Mullis was a scientist. He never spoke like a globalist, and said
once, memorably, when accused of making statements about HIV that could
endanger lives: “I’m a scientist. I’m not a lifeguard.” That’s a very important
line in the sand. Somebody who goes around claiming they are “saving
lives,” is a very dangerous animal, and you should run in the opposite
direction when you encounter them. Their weapon is fear, and their favorite
word is “could.” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt, creating simulations
of every imaginable thing that “could” happen, yet hasn’t. Bill Gates has been
waiting a long time for a virus with this much, as he put it, “pandemic
potential.” But Gates has a problem, and it’s called PCR.

Of
Mullis’ invention, Polymerase Chain Reaction, the London
Observer wrote:

“Not
since James Watt walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the
secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an inspiration that set
loose the industrial revolution, has a single, momentous idea been so well
recorded in time and place.”

What does HIV
have to do with Covid-19?

PCR
played a central role in the HIV war (a war you don’t know about, that lasted
22 years, between Globalist post-modern HIV scientists and classical
scientists.) The latter lost the war. Unless you count being correct as
winning. The relentless violence finally silenced the opposition, and it seemed
nobody would ever learn who these scientists were, or why they fought this
thing so adamantly and passionately.

And
PCR, though its inventor died last year, and isn’t here to address it, plays a
central role in Corona terrorism.

Here
is an outtake from an article I published in SPIN, in 1994, about Kary Mullis,
PCR, HIV and…Tony Fauci . . . .

What will be next? Is a question on many people’s
minds. Very likely the world will never be the same again. That might be good,
or not so good, depending on how we look at this disastrous, “pandemic” which
by all serious accounts does not deserve the term “pandemic”, that was
unwittingly attributed to the SARS-2-CoV, or 2019-nCoV, renamed by WHO as COVID-19.

On March 11, Dr. Tedros, WHO’s Director
General called it a pandemic. This decision was already taken by the WEF (World
Economic Forum) in Davos, from 20 -24 January 2020, when the total COVID19
cases outside of China were recorded by WHO as 150. On January 30,
theWHO Director General determines that the outbreak outside
of Mainland China constituted a Public Health Emergency of
International Concern (PHEIC). This was a first indication that there was
something not quite right, that there is another agenda behind the “outbreak”
of the COVID-19 disease.

Nobody, anywhere, could have predicted what we are
now witnessing: in a matter of only a few weeks the accumulated collapse of
global supply chains, aggregate demand, consumption, investment, exports,
mobility.

Nobody is betting on an L-shaped recovery anymore –
not to mention a V-shaped one. Any projection of global gross domestic product
(GDP) in 2020 gets into falling-off-a-cliff territory.

In industrialized economies, where roughly 70% of
the workforce is in services, countless businesses in myriad industries will
fail in a rolling financial collapse that will eclipse the Great
Depression.

That spans the whole spectrum of possibly 47 million
US workers soon to be laid off – with the unemployment rate skyrocketing to 32%
– all the way to Oxfam’s warning that by the time the pandemic is over
half of the world’s population of 7.8 billion people could be living in
poverty.

According to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO)
most optimistic 2020 scenario – certainly to become outdated before the end of
Spring – global trade would shrink by 13%. A more realistic
and gloomier WTO scenario sees global trade plunging by
32%.

What we are witnessing is not only a massive
globalization short circuit: it’s a cerebral shock extended to three billion
hyperconnected, simultaneously confined people. Their bodies may be blocked, but
they are electromagnetic beings and their brains keep working – with possible,
unforeseen political and other consequences.

Soon we will be facing three major, interlocking
debates: the management (in many cases appalling) of the crisis; the search for
future models; and the reconfiguration of the world-system.

This is just a first approach in what should be seen
as a do-or-die cognitive competition.

Host Jim Vrettos interviews Professor Michael
Hudson, Economist, Wall St. Analyst, Political Consultant, Commentator and
Journalist; who offers his views in the way finance works and how debt is
actually a tool for oppression.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of this
pandemic panic to one striking at the root. Join James Corbett on the streets
of Japan as he strikes at the root of the pandemic problem that we are being
presented with. Will you accept or reject the new governing principle of
society?

Matching the surge in COVID-19 cases is a surge of
healthcare workers who won't speak to journalists for fear of losing their
jobs.

Why the sudden spook. The top brass at hospitals and
healthcare systems across the country have become so concerned about reputation
that they've been issuing gag orders to their staff, prohibiting them from
speaking to the pressMatching the surge in COVID-19 cases is a surge of
healthcare workers who won't speak to journalists for fear of losing their
jobs.

Why the sudden spook? The top brass at hospitals and
healthcare systems across the country have become so concerned about reputation
that they've been issuing gag orders to their staff, prohibiting them from
speaking to the press. Some physicians and other healthcare workers have been
disciplined or even fired for speaking up about shortages of personal
protective equipment or concern for their colleagues' safety.

Yet the unofficial policies persist. Just last
Thursday, April 9, the CEO of Woodhull Hospital, in Brooklyn, called out
employees for speaking to the press. Administrators at the hospital, one of
eleven in NYC Health + Hospitals' public system, host a daily conference call
to keep employees up to speed on rapidly changing situations and
policies. Recent calls have left staffers anxious about being reprimanded
for speaking up for safety concerns for themselves and patients, employees
said. In last week's meeting, a recording of which was obtained by Medscape Medical News, hospital CEO
Gregory Calliste chastised employees for speaking to journalists about various
concerns. The following is an excerpted transcript of that video conference:

A video has emerged of the French president having a
blazing row with a medic just days before he admitted France had been
under-prepared for the coronavirus outbreak.

Emmanuel Macron was filmed arguing with the hospital
worker while he was on a visit to the Kremlin-Bicetre hospital in Paris on
April 9.

Shortly after the clip, which was released by a
medical workers union, the president was shown in footage released by his
office leading a round of applause with staff at the facility.

In the footage of the argument, he can be seen
telling hospital workers “we haven't
made up for 15 years of hospital tariff cuts, you're right,” before ducking
the blame for France’s current situation saying, “but I won't take responsibility for anything that's been done before
[taking office].”

Summary. The criminal global banking cartel has
effected a coup d’etat in the U.S. This is why the same criminal financial
elite that saw 1000 of its members go to prison 20 years ago (after the S&L
crisis) is now above the law. To date, the question of why the U.S. Department
of Justice has failed to prosecute even one too-big-to-fail bank for the
pervasive criminal frauds that drove the multi-trillion-dollar economic
meltdown of 2008 has been answered pretty much with shrugs. By far the most
insightful answer was provided by Martin Smith’s breathtaking Untouchables
episode, which PBS Frontline aired in January 2013. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fil... But even Smith’s
answer—that the DOJ never truly investigated Wall Street crime due largely to
the so-called collateral consequences doctrine—really explains how rather than
why prosecutions have been scuttled. In an effort to pick up where the Untouchables
left off in early 2013, BestEvidence presents “The Veneer of Justice in a
Kingdom of Crime.” In addition to analyzing events that have occurred since the
Untouchables aired (including events caused by the Untouchables), and in an
attempt to answer some of the deeply troubling issues raised by Martin Smith,
“Veneer" examines certain implications the DOJ's pronouncements, since
late 2012, that the rule of law is effectively dead (having been supplanted by
the management of oversized global banks).

What follows is a brief American legal history of
the executive branch's overthrow by criminal global banks, which is divided
into four roughly chronological segments.

I. Background (March 2010 to December 2012) Goldman
Sachs’ legal defenses to fraud—and the DOJ’s adoption of those defenses—are
summarized and exposed as false. The DOJ soon admits it refrains from
prosecutions not based on any law, but on unspecified collateral effects that
prosecutions allegedly would have.

II. Lessons From the Untouchables (January 2013)
Since it won't prosecute Wall Street, the DOJ doesn't even bother conducting
investigations. The overriding factor is collateral consequences. Two potential
sources for collateral consequences opinions emerge: government regulators and
the very financial institutions that have been accused of crimes.

III. The DOJ’s Endless Lies to Conceal Its Master
(February 2013 - April 2014) The DOJ’s claim that government regulators
provided opinions on collateral consequences is exposed as a lie. There never
were any such regulators. Instead, the DOJ’s sources of collateral consequences
opinions are—as the DOJ itself once admitted, before falsely backtracking—the
very banks accused of crimes. The collateral consequences doctrine itself is
next exposed as a sham, used by global banks to declare immunity from their own
crimes—the act of a king.

IV. Presenting the True Sovereign Power in the
Executive Branch The one bank that’s on record as having gained access to a DOJ
conference room—where, as the DOJ previously admitted, global banks asserted
immunity from their own crimes—is revealed. The true chain of command in the
DOJ is presented.

There’s no doubt that the Coronavirus is
a serious infection that can lead to severe illness or death. There’s also no
doubt that ‘virus hysteria’ has been used for other purposes. Wall Street, for
example, has used virus-panic to advance its own agenda and get another round
of trillion dollar bailouts. In fact, it took less than a week to get the
pushover congress to ram through a massive $2.2 trillion boondoggle without
even one lousy congressman offering a peep of protest. That’s got to be some
kind of record.

In 2008, at the peak of the financial
crisis, Congress voted “No” to the $700 billion TARP bill. Some readers might
recall how a number of GOP congressmen bravely banded together and flipped Wall
Street “the bird”. That didn’t happen this time around. Even though the bill is
three times bigger than the TARP ( $2.2 trillion), no one lifted a finger to
stop it. Why?

Fear, that’s why. Everyone in congress
was scared to death that if they didn’t rush this debt-turd through the House
pronto, the economy would collapse while tens of thousands of corpses would be
stacking up in cities across the country. Of course the reason they believed
this nonsense was because the goofy infectious disease experts confidently
assured everyone that the body-count would be “in the hundreds of thousands if
not millions.” Remember that fiction? The most recent estimate is somewhere in
the neighborhood of 60,000 total. I don’t need to tell you that the difference
between 60,000 and “millions” is a little more than a rounding-error.

So we’ve had the wool pulled over our
eyes, right? Not as bad as congress, but, all the same, we’ve been hoodwinked
and we’ve been fleeced. And the people who have axes to grind have been very
successful in taking advantage of the hysteria and promoting their own agendas.
Maybe you’ve noticed the reemergence of creepy Bill Gates and the Vaccine
Gestapo or NWO Henry Kissinger warning us that, “the world will never be the
same after the coronavirus”.

What do these people know that we don’t
know? Doesn’t it all make you a bit suspicious? And when you see nonstop
commercials on TV telling you to “wash your hands”or “keep your distance” or
“stay inside” and, oh yeah, “We’re all in this together”, doesn’t it leave you
scratching your head and wondering who the hell is orchestrating this
virus-charade and what do they really have in mind for us unwashed masses??

At least in the case of Wall Street, we
know what they want. They want money and lots of it.

Have you looked over the $2.2 trillion
CARES bill that Trump just signed into law a couple weeks ago? It’s pretty grim
reading, so I’ll save you the effort. Here’s a rough breakdown:

$250 billion will go for the $1,200
checks that most of us will receive in a couple weeks. And $250 billion will be
provided for extended unemployment insurance benefits.

That’s $500 billion.

Working people will get $500 billion
while Wall Street and Corporate America will get 3 times that amount. ($1.7
trillion) And even that’s a mere fraction of the total sum because– hidden in
the small print– is a section that allows the Fed to lever-up the base-capital
by 10-to-1 ($450 billion to $4.5 trillion) which means the Fed can buy as many
“toxic” bonds and garbage assets as it chooses.

With the entire mainstream
media-devouring population tirelessly fixated on Donald Trump’s latest reality
TV offering with an intensity that would scare Newark’s biggest meth enthusiast
into a monastery, the U.S. hurtles cluelessly towards the worst financial
crisis in, oh, 500 years or so. Against this surreal backdrop, Best Evidence is
pleased to present the very first episode of “Mafiacracy Now,” a modest dollop
of ice-cold legal reality for the dozen or so U.S. residents capable of
responding to the U.S.S. Horror Show with even a scrap of sanity, by at least
pausing now and then to ask themselves things like “is this shit ACTUALLY going
on right now?” Sadly, yes, it is going on right now. And it won’t end well,
either. This is what happens, Larry, when you hand the keys of the kingdom over
to criminal bankers. This series will seek to explain over the course of many,
many depressing episodes how we got into this mess and thus how we can get out.
Hint: REVOLUTION, the legal levers for reform having been stolen long ago by
criminals; see the problem? This series likewise will dismantle, with no more
than a glass of tap water, the absurd paper mâché Disneyworld edifice hiding
the rot that is the U.S. economy. Ahh, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
For now, in this debut episode of “Mafiacracy Now,” Best Evidence—following an
unfortunately long lacuna that is explained herein—brings us back up to speed
with a quick summary of how the banks, which, having been rewarded with
wholesale criminal immunity for causing the last crisis, are now positioned
with more legal power than is possessed by the president, congress, and the
Supreme Court COMBINED as they steer us relentlessly into the next crisis. Oh,
joy.

Greg
Reese hits it out of the park, once again with this short video that enumerates
the manifold entanglements of everyone on Trump’s COVID-19 response team with
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Big Pharma.

***

TRANSCRIPT

Anthony
Fauci does not like conspiracy theories. And if the President does not fire several
members of his COVID-19 response team, the books written in the future will
likely be about the Bill Gates-Big Pharma takeover of America.

•
Dr Fauci is on the Leadership Council for the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.

•
Deborah Birx is a board member for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria, which was founded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

•
Robert Redfield, current director of the CDC was a founder of the Institute of
Human Virology, who has received $31.8 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.

•
Seema Verma has worked with Sue Desmond-Hellman, Chief Executive Officer of the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

•
Alex Azar was President of Eli Lilly’s US division. Under his leadership,
prices for the company’s top-selling insulin drug tripled, which led to a
class-action lawsuit.

•
Jerome Adams received a medical scholarship from Eli Lilly.

•
Stephen Hahn is commissioner for the FDA who partnered with Bill and Melinda
Gates in 2017.

•
Stephen Mnuchin was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale University and he
partnered with George Soros to create SFM Capital Management.

•
Bret Giroir was the Director of DARPA.

•
CDC official, Dr. Nancy Messonnier is Rod Rosenstein’s sister.

Many
have been concerned that President Trump has been surrounded by Deep State
operatives for the past three years. Well, now he seems to be completely
surrounded by Big Pharma and Bill Gates loyalists, all pushing vaccines as the
solution and admitting that they might make things worse.

Los
Angeles has announced that they’re going to pay people to snitch on their
neighbors.

LA
Mayor Eric Garcetti:
“You know the old expression about snitches. Well, in this case, snitches get
rewards we want to thank you for turning folks in and making sure we are all
safe.”

And
the public is now being prepared for mandatory certificates of immunity in
order to freely leave their homes.

CNN
Reporter:
“Can you imagine a time where Americans carry certificates of immunity?

Dr
Anthony Fauci: “You
know, that’s possible. I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when
we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not – this
is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually be have some
merit under certain circumstances.”

One the day before yesterday that I hope to be educational compared to many
friends who are far from the medical sector, and scratch their heads in the
face of Raoult and the many post-conspirators who praise the
'hydroxychloroquine.

The other from April 8 on the lack of masks and tests.

“Open letter to a
friend, a union member, a yellow vest who "believes" in
hydroxychloroquine”

Like me, you discovered with interest the work of
Professor Raoult of Marseille, who spoke of hydroxychloroquine as a molecule
which had proven its effectiveness against Covid-19. And I would add who
decided to massively test the Marseillais, when the government said that it was
useless! Of course I was surprised that instead of doing tests close to the
locals, in neighborhoods, laboratories, companies, he sometimes gathered in
disregard of social distances a crowd in front of his institute.

Like a symbol of the providential man, one against all!

"Like you, I am an opponent of pharmaceutical
trusts"

But I knew about chloroquine, having taken it for malaria
prevention some 20 years ago, when it was still effective. 100 mg daily. But
there, the dose is 600 mg per day. At this dose, the risks of heart rhythm
disturbances, sudden death are significant.

Even more important when hydroxychloroquine is used in
combination with other medicines, which like it "increase QT". Among
them is azithromycin, used in its protocol. But also the ventoline that you use
against your asthma, or the anti-allergic ones against the pollens which rot
your life. If we add that 20% of patients with Covid-19 in intensive care have
an attack of the heart muscle, that makes three cardiovascular risk factors!
The association would have to be damn effective for the benefit-risk balance to
be good!

Like you, I am an opponent of the pharmaceutical trusts
which have shown us a hundred times that they prefer their profits to our
health. In 2001, they sued South Africa, which sold 30 dollars worth of
generics against AIDS, that they sold 3,000 dollars. So I went to read not the
medical press sponsored by the labs, but the journal Prescrire. An independent
pharmacology journal, funded solely by its subscribers, which for example
released the Mediator scandal. And there my disappointment was immense for your
hero! Of the 26 patients who received hydroxychloroquine, three patients were
transferred to intensive care and one patient died. But Professor Raoult
decided to take them out of his results, to stop counting them! No such
development was described among the 16 control patients. In the absence of a
control group recruited according to a similar protocol and identical
follow-up, it is not known whether the time taken to carry the virus is shorter
or not in the absence of hydroxychloroquine.

"End of game for the Covid"?

Worse, at the beginning of March 2020, the Chinese
professor Chen published an essay with two groups determined by drawing lots,
with no major difference in characteristics. In the 30 Covid-19 patients, no demonstration
of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. With a disappearance of the virus in the
throat in four days in the chloroquine group, against two days in the group
without. The state of health of certain patients having worsened, all in the
chloroquine group, the hypothesis that it sometimes worsens Covid-19 is not
excluded! Hydroxychloroquine is used to false good news. Already against
chikungunya, it was active in vitro, in the test tube. But in the body, it is
something else! It promoted the development of the virus, prolonged the fever,
the carriage and the duration of the pains! And against the coronavirus of
2003, it had not shown any real effectiveness.

Many countries, far from the French controversy, have
integrated hydroxychloroquine into their protocols and research. Like Sweden
for example, which has just abandoned it. Too many heart problems, not enough
efficiency. We are far from the thunderous declarations of Professor Raoult,
who did not hesitate to say "end of game for the Covid": "The disease
will soon be one of the simplest and cheapest to treat and prevent, among all
infectious respiratory diseases. "More than 100,000 dead later, the
demonstration is not made!

So you think it works and I don't? But no, I tell you
that we need to do real studies, on hydroxychloroquine, on antivirals, on the
plasma of immunized people, to really know what works or not, on whom, at what
time of the disease. But Professor Raoult refused to do so, arguing that
double-blind clinical studies, against placebo or a drug recognized as
effective, are bureaucratic machines, imposed by the labs. So there, my blood
has only been a lap, because if pharmacological studies are the norm in the
drug, it is not because the pharmaceutical industry wanted it, it costs him billions
and, at the on the contrary it wishes to lighten them. This is because after
the health scandals of the 1970s, and in particular the scandal of infants
without arms of thalidomine, an anti-nausea drug put on the market without
studies, everywhere consumer associations imposed these studies, which
unfortunately have have been entrusted by the governments to the labs
themselves. These studies must be defended against the pharmaceutical industry,
and made independent!

"Professor Raoult no longer makes me dream"

Climatic-skeptical, supporter of GMOs, battling against
feminist movements, adored by conspirators and the billionaire president Donald
Trump, Professor Raoult remains a great infectious disease specialist and his
hydroxychloroquine must be scientifically tested. But it no longer makes me
dream. If you want to oppose the pharmacy trusts, in these times of shortage,
of a capitalist stranglehold on the race for drugs and vaccines, look rather on
the side of the appeal of 61 European organizations, including Doctors of the
World , the Observatory of transparency in drug policies, the journal
Prescrire. Millions of euros in grants are awarded for medical research by the
European Union and governments. But these public subsidies "do not mention
any guarantee that financial accessibility clauses will be put in place to
facilitate access to the product", "Community financing does not
prevent the issuance of exclusive operating licenses", in other words
patents that will sell to the highest bidder. "Given the public health
emergency, we cannot allow a business as usual approach in which market
dynamics dictate pricing at the expense of rapid access, and where financial
considerations - rather than public health - guide where and when the products
will be available ”. Our lives are worth more than their profits, but that does
not go through Professor Raoult.

The king is naked and he lied! For weeks, the messages of
power on useless masks and tests to be reserved for resuscitation services have
been nothing but a facade to mask the unthinkable.

To save 50 million euros, the Hollande-Marisol Touraine
government has liquidated strategic mask stocks. To make it cheaper, the
production of surgical masks, like that of the former Giffard company in
Plaintel, however profitable, was relocated, and its machines thrown away for
scrap.

Lying and cynicism

To divert the glance from this shortage, one accuses the
great fair of capitalist grip on the masks, very real, the prices which
explode, the USA which steals “our” masks, even on the tarmac of the Chinese
airports, forgetting that France does the same with 4 million masks purchased
by Sweden, as the Express revealed.

The medical authorities, including the Academy of
Medicine, have covered this state lie about useless masks, this denial of
democracy revealed by Mediapart. For weeks, in the nursing homes, the directions
relayed this message, no need for masks for staff, for residents. We are paying
the price, with at least 2,417 deaths in Ehpad announced this Monday. Lying and
cynicism: while planes are nailed to the ground all over the world, the medical
world lacks masks, the government is beating television sets by repeating that
masks are reserved for health, it is organizing at the same time the diversion
of hundreds of thousands of masks to the Airbus company, so that it can
continue to produce. During the crisis, profits must continue ...

Where are the tests?

From January 12, China will distribute the complete
genetic sequence of the virus to the rest of the world, thus allowing anyone
who wants to start manufacturing screening tests. In South Korea, the first
kits are thus available as of February 4, two weeks before the outbreak of the
epidemic. In Germany, 500,000 tests are carried out each week, based on all
city laboratories, carried out in a decentralized manner as close as possible
to the populations, making it possible to isolate all the patients, and not
only the most serious, but also the carriers healthy. When we know that models
of the Chinese epidemic show that one in two contamination is linked to
symptomless carriers, we see the value of this mass screening. Mortality in
Korea and Germany attests to this. The French government has chosen the
opposite path. Only test the most serious cases, at the entrance to the
intensive care unit. Severely limit testing in nursing homes. Criminal madness,
in contrast to WHO recommendations. From February 24 to March 27, only 200,000
tests were performed in France, while Germany performs 500,000 per week.

Late 180° turn

But it's not just the number of tests. Having chosen to
test little, the French medical authorities have neglected to provide for a
massive supply of swabs, to supply town laboratories with adequate protective
equipment (glasses, overcoats, etc.), and to secure the supply of reagents
which often come from China. The government has refused to requisition French
companies "leaders in the diagnostic market that exist in France", as
demanded on March 18 by the Observatory of transparency in drug policies.
Wanting to test little, the department favored long techniques, requiring heavy
specialized equipment, like the proprietary Roche system, incompatible with the
systems of city laboratories! Whereas rapid, automated and decentralized
techniques should have been favored, using all the existing biology centers,
human, veterinary, research, to test as many people as possible… Rapid tests
exist, swabs exist, laboratories exist. The government has turned its back on
them. Obliged to make a 180 ° turn in the face of mounting anger and with the
prospect of deconfinement, Olivier Veran hopes to be able to test 50,000 people
a day ... But only at the end of April!

It
is (as it were) deplorable that such important news about a valid regimen for
treating COVID-19 should be so ferociously politicized, with "the
left" (from Amy Goodman to the New York Timesand Rita Wilson)
pooh-poohing it, and the right exploiting it to Trump's advantage (as in this Gateway
Pundit headline).

I
put scare quotes on "the left" because their blackout on the good
news about hydroxychloroquine is perfectly in sync with Macron's smear
campaign against Dr. Raoult, which tells us that Big Pharma and its
towering accomplices are managing "the left" as well as France:

In late March FOX News host Laura Ingraham reported on the latest
study by the French research team led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Didier
Raoult was able to repeat his findings from a previous study.

“Some wisdom on
the lockdowns, from a man who should be holding Dr. Fauci's job.”

In this "back to work" edition of
Perspectives on the Pandemic, John Kirby talks with Dr. David L. Katz, the
author of the much-debated March 20th New York Times op-ed, "Is Our Fight
Against the Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?"

A
recent study provides a platform for generating infectious coronavirus genomes
using sequence data, examining their capabilities of replicating in human cells
and causing diseases in animal models, and evaluating therapeutics and
vaccines. Similar approaches could be used to assess the potential of human
emergence and pathogenicity for
other viruses.

Crops
rotting in fields. Dairy farmers incentivized to quit for good. Beef/pork
processors shutting down. All by design. Spread the word and make sure everyone
starts growing food, no matter how small scale — every bit helps.

In late January, a
viral video from China showed people who’d wandered outside in the
early days of the coronavirus outbreak getting scolded by a disembodied voice
from a drone flying overhead. Last month, similar campaigns began in France,
where locals flouting travel restrictions were gently
reminded to “respectez les distances de sécurité s’il vous plaît.”

Now, self-righteous flying robots
have made their way to the U.S., with at least two American police departments
deploying drones to tell people to disperse, go home, and stay there.

Last Friday, the mayor of Elizabeth,
New Jersey, where there are more than 1,400 confirmed cases of COVID-19,
announced plans to deploy drones to enforce social-distancing rules.

“The most important thing you can do
to fight this virus is stay at home,” Mayor Chris Bollwage said last Friday.
“Some may notice drones monitoring your neighborhoods. These drones are going
to alert people to move away from each other if they are congregating. This is
not a joke. It is extremely serious.”

The Daily Mail reported that
it has uncovered documents showing that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) gave $3.7 million to
scientists at the Wuhan Lab at the center of coronavirus leak scrutiny.
According to the British paper, “the federal grant funded experiments on bats
from the caves where the virus is believed to have originated.”

Background: Following the
2002-2003 SARS coronavirus outbreak, NIH funded a collaboration by
Chinese scientists, US military virologists from the bioweapons lab at Fort
Detrick and National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists from NIAID to
prevent future coronavirus outbreaks by studying the evolution of virulent
strains from bats in human tissues. Those efforts included “gain of function” research which
is “accelerated viral evolution” to create COVID Pandemic superbugs, enhanced
bat borne COVID mutants more lethal and more transmissible than wild COVID.

… these researchers risk creating a monster
germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.

Fauci’s studies alarmed scientists around the globe who
complained, according to a December 2017 NY Times article, that
“these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and
seed a pandemic.” Dr. Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard School of Public
Health’s Communicable Disease Center told the Times that Dr. Fauci’s NIAID
experiments “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost
nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemic, and yet risked creating an
accidental pandemic.”